Categories
a voice for men block that metaphor evil women false accusations incoherent rage manginas misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men paranoia paul elam playing the victim YouTube

MRA Paul Elam: “This world deserves a jerk on the collar and a slap across the face and the flying spittle of rage.”

A Voice for Men's Flying Spittle Production Department
A Voice for Men’s Flying Spittle Production Department

“Compassion for Boys and Men.” This, the slogan of Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men, has always struck me as a teensy bit ironic, given that site founder and head angry dude Paul Elam spends much of his time berating other men, and really only seems interested in showing “compassion,” if it can be called that, for those who not only agree with everything he says but also donate money to him.

Recently Mr. Elam ran across a four-year-old video that’s been posted to the Men’s Rights subreddit numerous times in recent days. It shows a young woman assaulting a campus preacher, and knocking him off a platform, after falsely accusing him of groping her. (The woman, a student at Middle Tennessee State University, was arrested and later pled guilty to assault charges, getting a year’s probation, some community service and a fine; the preacher suffered only minor injuries.)

But the fact that a few people in the crowd cheered for the attacker apparently convinced Elam that everyone in the world except him and a few of his pals are worthless pieces of crap.

Look at the crowd cheer this violent lunatic on. It isn’t just her that is the problem. We live in a psychotic world where women can do whatever they want to men, as long as they vomit up a lie, like “get your hand off my breast.” It is a world which praises sickness, as long as the person to suffer for it is male.

Well, actually, it looked like most of the people in the crowd were a bit shocked by her assault and the preacher’s fall, and several people came forward to help him. And I’m not quite sure how Elam managed to miss the fact that the woman in question was led off by police at the end of the video.

In this culture, most every woman is Sharon Osbourne. Most every man is Hugo Schwyzer.

By describing women as a bunch of “Sharon Osbournes,” Elam is not (I don’t think) suggesting that they are savvy, articulate women who’ve been able to not only survive but flourish in male-dominated industries; no, he’s making a reference to the one time that Osbourne made a horrible castration joke on national television, and suggesting that women are a bunch of evil harpies that love to fantasize about cutting men’s dicks off.

By referring to men as “Hugo Schwyzers” — Elam’s post was written before Schwyzer’s recent Twitter meltdown — he’s not (I don’t think) suggesting that men are all a bunch of manipulative predators who glom onto feminism as a way to exploit and manipulate women, but rather suggesting that they’re a bunch of obsequious manginas who let women walk all over them.

I feel confident in attributing these interpretations to Elam’s words because he’s made these arguments many times before. It’s pretty obvious that Elam hates women. It’s only a little less obvious that he hates most men as well.

But I don’t think it’s really this video that’s got Elam angry. It looks to me like he’s still stewing over a recent op-ed by libertarian anti-feminist Cathy Young — a writer in many ways deeply sympathetic to the Men’s Rights ideology — which took a passing shot at A Voice for Men and similar sites whose “steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing … discredits any valid points they may make.”

So far Elam’s site has run at least four other posts — possibly five? I’ve lost count —  responding to the single sentence mentioning AVFM in her column, including one by him and another by a “brigade” of self-described “Honey Badgers” (female MRAs), but Elam can’t resist the opportunity to point out yet again that he’s going to remain as angry as he wants to be:

I do not give a rat’s fucking ass about offending or upsetting any of them.

This world does not deserve MHRAs that are decent or measured or considerate of the mainstreams sensibilities. This world deserves a jerk on the collar and a slap across the face and the flying spittle of rage that it earns with each man and boy that it denigrates and abuses.

“The Flying Spittle of Rage” makes a much better — and more accurate — slogan for AVFM than that boring old “Compassion for Boys and Men.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

241 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pecunium
8 years ago

And, just to ice the cake: since you don’t know the Plural of Virus

English Inflections
First off, the OED gives nothing but viruses for the plural. Here’s its abbreviated entry:

Etymology: a. L. virus slimy liquid, poison, offensive odour or taste. Hence also Fr., Sp., Pg. virus.

1 Venom, such as is emitted by a poisonous animal. Also fig.

2 Path. a A morbid principle or poisonous substance produced in the body as the result of some disease, esp. one capable of being introduced into other persons or animals by inoculations or otherwise and of developing the same disease in them. Now superseded by the next sense.

b Pl. viruses. An infectious organism that is usu. submicroscopic, can multiply only inside certain living host cells (in many cases causing disease) and is now understood to be a non-cellular structure lacking any intrinsic metabolism and usually comprising a DNA or RNA core inside a protein coat (see also quot. 1977). [ Formerly referred to as filterable viruses, their first distinguishing characteristic being the ability to pass through filters that retained bacteria. ]

Other sources that support viruses include Birchfield (né Fowler 🙂 in Modern English Usage (3rd Edition), and also the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.

pecunium
8 years ago

To go into a bit more detail (the linguists, and those interested in linguistics would probably enjoy the entire entry), on the latin aspects of the word:

Numerous Latin words have been taken over into the modern scientific vocabulary, most without difficulty. The Latin word virus, however, presents a minor but interesting problem, if one wishes to express a phrase such as Index of Viruses in its Latin form. By analogy with other nouns, one would expect the normal Latin equivalent to be Index Virorum. The difficulty stems from the fact that the Latin noun virus is defective, i.e. does not have a full set of case–forms, singular and plural. The Roman grammarian Priscian (fl. 500 A.D.) states that some claim the word is indeclinable (i.e., has only one form for all the cases in the singular); others, apparently more accurately, that it is declined in the singular according to the second declension neuter and cite two passages from the poet Lucretius in substantiation. All of the ancient grammarians are in agreement, however, that the word is used in the singular only, which indeed appears to be true, for no plural forms are attested in extant Latin works.

In antiquity the word virus had not yet acquired, of course, its current scientific meaning; rather it denoted something like toxicity, venom, a poisonous, deleterious, or unpleasant agent or principle, or poison in the abstract or general sense. (The first meaning given for this word, a slimy liquid, slime, in the most widely used Latin-English dictionaries is inaccurate; the error has been corrected in the more recent Oxford Latin Dictionary.) Nouns denoting entities that are countable pluralize (book, books); nouns denoting noncountable entities do not (except under special circumstances) pluralize (air, mood, valor). The term virus in antiquity appears to have belonged to the latter category, hence the nonexistence of plural forms.

When the word was taken over into modern languages and acquired its current scientific meaning, it changed categories and denoted a countable entity. The modern languages which have adopted the word each pluralize it in their own fashion (e.g., Eng. viruses, Germ. Viren; French and Italian do not distinguish in form between singular and plural, virus).

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

It’s a verb! Noptopus is a verb! (And it’s aetheri not aertheri and you can pick pecunia or peculium, and Latin, Y U WEIRD!?)

katz
8 years ago

I almost want to add freemage’s comment to the Welcome Package so that atheists with good intentions don’t accidentally step in it.

Meh, yeah I’d keep the Welcome Package a nice unconditional gift rather than making it rulesy. That said, I can imagine putting together a list of common beginner mistakes, and in that (along with “don’t make fun of furries” and “don’t play devil’s advocate”) we could mention that this is generally a religiously tolerant space.

FWIW, I certainly don’t want to turn this into a “let’s always talk about how atheists are terrible” space (or even a “let’s always talk about how certain atheists are terrible” space) either, nor a “never ever mention religion ever for any reason” space.

But most of all I don’t want to become the conversation police, though not sure I’m succeeding on that front 9_9

Freemage gave a good summary, I think.

katz
8 years ago

PS I thought we agreed on “sea beasties.”

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Romanian says viruși, which is both not Latin, and rather nice. (Pecunium, the pronunciation sounds more Russian than Latin to me, if that helps you any)

takshak
takshak
8 years ago

I didn’t realize there would be a hazing.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

I’ve been using eight legged sea creatures, but I think you’re right about sea beasties.

pecunium
8 years ago

katz: I hear you on not wanting to become a conversation cop. I refrain from comment on a lot of these topics, as they come up, so as to avoid the sense of dogpile: I don’t want it to become an unfriendly space for anyone; of good will.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Latin for octopus appears to be polypus, ’twas not expecting that. Plural polyporum.

And Romanian…this one is based in neither Latin nor Greek, I don’t recognize the root at all. (Pecunium is octopus = caracatiță a Slavic root?)

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“I hear you on not wanting to become a conversation cop.”

Except regarding the proper term for multiple eight legged sea creatures. Because that one’s usually pretty funny.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

takshak: Try not to take it too personally; frankly, it has more to do with timing than anything else–you came in at just the right time for everyone to still be a little bit prickly about the subject. Just accept that that’s the general mood of the room right now, and roll with it, and all should be good.

For the record, part of the reason I’ve been trying to deal with this is that well, the last time? I was the one who did it, and with less of a justification-via-ignorance than new posters have. So I’m trying to do some good works, here.

katz & cloudiah: Thanks for the kind words; it’s appreciated to know that I’m getting this right, actually. I do agree that the sort of guidelines I’m proposing don’t really fit directly with the tone of the Welcome Package; maybe a second collection of links (or even just a page full of quotes) giving some “Here There Be Tygers” topic warnings?

inurashii
inurashii
8 years ago

*pokes head in door* Hey everybody did you hear? The ‘figurative emphasis’ definition of the word ‘literally is in dictionaries now!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

*runs off giggling madly*

Kristineedscats
8 years ago

People on this site are not following this idea:

“They don’t always succeed in making that crucial distinction between ‘I disagree with you’ and ‘I’m just going to be an asshole towards you.”

If this statement is acceptable here:

“The whole problem being that, if you start out by saying that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional, there’s pretty much no non-asshole way to go from there.”

Than this DIRECT response is reasonable as well: (and is then NOT off-subject NOR a red herring)

“The whole problem being that, if you start out by saying that everyone who disagrees with you is an immoral monster who is going to Hell, there’s pretty much no non-asshole way to go from there.”

My personal experience is similar to takshak and the way you are treating takshak is wrong.
I felt marginalized as an athiest by the theists on the thread before takshak turned a theist’s own argument on its face. *I don’t know why you might be holding takshak to a different standard than the theiests who previously commented.*

Apparently people on this thread are not capable of just saying, “I disagree with you” but must act like bullies and turn into the “superior assholes” attacking one person for saying something that is not inappropriate given the discussion on the thread.

cloudiah
8 years ago

“Here There Be Tygers”

True story. I was with a friend, and for some reason I used the phrase “Here be dragons.” She seemed puzzled, so I explained it used to be a common phrase to describe uncharted areas on maps. She still seemed puzzled, but you know, the conversation turned to other things.

It was only a few months later that I found out the reason she was puzzled was that she had mis-heard me as saying “Barbie dragons.” Which would indeed be a puzzling thing to see on a map.

takshak
takshak
8 years ago

Try not to take it too personally

I’m sorry, but I do take it personally when my character is impuned.

pecunium
8 years ago

I wrote this, and I decided to withhold it. It seems more relevant now, so I’ll publish it. Yes, kristineedscats, it’s more directed to you, though it was a response to takshak

The whole problem being that, if you start out by saying that everyone who disagrees with you is an immoral monster who is going to Hell, there’s pretty much no non-asshole way to go from there.

This is true, but it’s not what happens.

Pharyngula (to use the example at hand) commenters don’t respond to people who make that claim. They don’t even limit their random inclusions of anti-religious comment to that aspect of things.

They make sweeping statements about the objective mental skills of religious people, and somewhat less sweeping (but by no means limited) claims about the moral objective and social policy designs of religious people as a whole.

Even many non-fundy believers are rude to me all the time, and they don’t even realize they’re being rude.

Which puts them a small bit above people who are being rude to them, on purpose; doesn’t it? The Atheists don’t even have the (pathetic) moral cover of, “my diety requires me to speak about my faith, and my diety’s magnificence”.

And… being rude to group/person B because group/person A was rude to you, bad form.

As to your accusation of bullying: nice way to wave a bloody shirt.

Because what was done was to say, “dude, that’s not really cool” and then to explain why. If you think that’s bullying, the door is that way; because we do it all the time, and this ain’t the place for you.

pecunium
8 years ago

takshak:

Try not to take it too personally

I’m sorry, but I do take it personally when my character is impuned.</i

You aren't the only one to take it personally when their character is impugned. And you impugned, by extension a lot of people here; both theists, and not.

takshak
takshak
8 years ago

And you impugned, by extension a lot of people here; both theists, and not.

where?

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Which is missing the whole thing where neither atheists nor theists are all assholes like that. Which is good, cuz we’d have serious issues otherwise (dear gods pecunium, can you imagine how that fight would go? I have no desire to discover which of us is more stubborn!)

cloudiah
8 years ago

Hm. I’m not reading either katz’s original post, nor takshak’s response to that, as impugning anyone’s character here.

But I may be missing something.

::puts this comment thread down and backs away::

kittehserf
8 years ago

takshak, Kristinneedscats – this is not a place where anyone of any belief tells other people they’re going to hell, or anything like it. It is a place where there’s been a history of people being assholes about any not-atheist beliefs, including things like otherkin or fictionkin. The most recent example of that was just the other week. We’ve a real mixture of beliefs here, and the point we’re making is to not make such broad statements that they swipe people here.

This isn’t hazing, it’s simply saying “Not the place, and there’s ugly history people don’t want repeated, kthnx.”

takshak
takshak
8 years ago

kittehserf, I wasn’t referring to that. I sincerely apologized for stepping over the invisible community line and I never made any broad statements. I also took Latin way back in the day.

Now, which (apologies or Latin) demonstrates my ill-will?

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Kitteh — well, NWO did, but troll. No one says anything like that without getting told where to shove it. And we have had some decent philosophical discussions on objective morality // how of course atheists can, and do, have morals (well, ethics is probably more correct, but they’re nearly interchangeable so whatever)

pecunium
8 years ago

Where? The whole problem being that, if you start out by saying that everyone who disagrees with you is an immoral monster who is going to Hell, there’s pretty much no non-asshole way to go from there.

There. Because no one here said any such thing. And when people said, “hey, we don’t roll that way”, you said, “yeah, but Theists are mean to me all the time”

But you don’t see it that way. You took a comment which used the word faith as an attack on your belief about the lack of deity, and ran with it. People told you that wasn’t what was meant, and that what you were doing was hurting members of the community, and you replied with the quote above.

That’s impugning character. It’s also false, which is adding insult to injury (if I say Ted Bundy is a murderer I am impugning his character, it is also true).

pecunium
8 years ago

Argenti: (dear gods pecunium, can you imagine how that fight would go? I have no desire to discover which of us is more stubborn!)

It would be epic; if we had grounds for personal disagreement, as opposed to philosophical differences about the nature of the ineffable.

katz
8 years ago

(and is then NOT off-subject NOR a red herring)

Nope, it is. Being able to draw a Meatball-style relationship between your topic and the original topic doesn’t change the fact that, if people are talking about one person/group doing one thing and you say “but this OTHER group does this OTHER thing,” then it’s a red herring because the whole effect is to get people to stop talking about the original topic and focus on the new one.

(Anyone else remember the game Meatball? Works best among small children.)

katz
8 years ago

Freemage, I appreciate how courteous you’re being and I hope I’m not stepping on your toes too badly, either, because that’s not my goal.

Pecunium, masterful use of “waving the bloody shirt.”

takshak
takshak
8 years ago

pecuniam, you are completely misrepresenting/mischaracterizing what I said, and ignoring the part where I apologized. That’s fine, I can’t change your mind once it’s made up. Only you can. I’ll disengage now.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: cloudiah

It was a story what life was like for trans* women prisoners who were being housed in the men’s prison at Vacaville.

D: I can only imagine.

RE: Fibinachi

Underneath the gurgling mass that is my general narcissism, I find that no particular problem.

Yeah, in my case, I felt that not only did I not exist, but if I did, I was pathological. It was a bad double-bind. (We multiples are really, REALLY encouraged not to see ourselves as people, but just dissociated delusional states of ego.)

RE: Argenti

DON’T YOU DARE MENTION THE OCTOPUS AGAIN. (Though I have actually used ‘nopetopus’ as a verb in my house, much to the amusement of my roommate.) Also, when you see Sneak, ask zer for zer jellyfish imitation.

RE: inurashii

*pokes head in door* Hey everybody did you hear? The ‘figurative emphasis’ definition of the word ‘literally is in dictionaries now!

Oh no! That’s one of my conversational pet peeves! D:

And no, I’m not touching yet ANOTHER a/theism thread. Nope nope nope *squirts inks and nopetopuses away*

pecunium
8 years ago

takshak: takshak: I am not ignoring the apology. I can’t help that you think I mischaracterised what you said. I can say that I don’t see any qualifiers in what you said; when you said it. You made an accusation, which was contextually local, about theists saying non-theists go to hell. You made it to the theists here.

I don’t think you were all that careful to not 1) imply that all believers are “like that” and 2) discuss religion *at all* . I do not know why you think I did.

I thought that you did because you directed a blanket statement to this commentariat.

To show how I got here, I’ll do a play by play:

“(and yes, they are still faith beliefs even if there’s no God involved).”

You’re playing a little bait-and-switch game with the multiple meanings of the word “faith”. Sneaky… & It implies that “atheism” is a “faith-belief”, which is untrue.

That’s a direct impugning: and it assumes a bad faith argument on the part of the person (M Dubz).

This was clarified 13 minutes later by Kittehs:

takshak, the faith beliefs M Dubz referred to were things like the rampant misogyny of the so-called sceptics. It’s not so much “atheism is a faith belief” as “atheists have other faith beliefs”. The whole White Dude Superiority (or even “there’s no harassment/rape at atheist conventions!!!1eleventy!!!”) is a faith belief, and one that way too many of these guys will not examine.

katz then inserted the Crowbar of Distinction (related to The Mallet of Loving Correction) a couple of hours after that, to which all agreed as a useful way to avoid such confusions in future:

I think we need a little crowbar separation here between a faith belief and a dogmatic belief, the former relating to things that can’t be proven empirically, the latter being held regardless of what evidence there might be and whether it supports the belief or not.

Several hours of conversation transpired (in which you took part) as these themes were explored; and no one was attacking you; nor saying Atheists are going to Hell.

Then Katz, in a thank you to Howard for caring about the distinction between, You believe I don’t, and, “you are a delusional idiot”, you whipped out the quotation you think I misrepresent.

I chose not to read your comment about “fundies” hurting you when they don’t know it as an accusation. Contextually it could be read that way.

Freemage, as an atheist, tried to tell you why that wasn’t a good line of argument here.

To which you said:

I may have taken it the wrong way, but there was a comment that implied that atheism is a “faith belief”,

If that wasn’t what was meant, then I apologize.

That’s not much of an apology. In point of fact, it’s not really an apology at all; not for the attack you made. It’s an apology for the comment you made to M Dubz, about pulling a bait and switch with “faith”.

The later things you said, weren’t about the use of faith, and how it was meant. They were about how theists act.

Which is what I held off on replying to, because it’s a fucking touchy subject, and pile-ons make it worse. You may recall I didn’t respond to any of this until people were called bullies, for defending themselves against an attack on their character. And I said it wasn’t as aimed at you as it might appear; because things had happened to temper my sentiments.

I’m going to assume I wasn’t as clear as I should have been, an so you didn’t notice it.

But that’s what I saw, and why I said what I said, and why I believe what I believe. My conclusions aren’t absolute, but it’s not on me to change them, just because you don’t like the way I’ve read the evidence.

pecunium
8 years ago

YAY! The Blockquote Monster was appeased.

Tracy
8 years ago

I think some people who characterize themselves as skeptics (the hyperskeptics) get ‘skeptical’ confused with ‘cynical’.

I also suspect that some atheists can get a little, um, dogmatic, is because they were raised with religion and feel they were lied to. I know I felt that way as a teenager, especially since the catholic church had been such a huge part of my life (though I never really believed… just my family were very involved in the church and school and so on). Some atheists may actually become anti-theists.

And some people are just smug assholes. Literally! ::pokes LBT, runs away giggling::

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: Tracy

You are such a jerk.

Enh, I’m an atheist, but probably not a skeptic. After all, I’m an atheist for emotional reasons, and were circumstances less against me, I probably would be a monk somewhere. As is, I have to satisfy myself with being a follower of the great Ed Wood.

pecunium
8 years ago

And no, the Blockquote Monster actually refused one of my offerings. The sentence after the first bolding is by takshak. I apologise for any confusion.

Tracy
8 years ago

Freemage:

I see you now and then in the comments section of blogs I lurk at (Pharyngula, etc). You’re always nice and definitely do not fall into the asshole-atheist category. Not that that needed saying – I just wanted to tell you that!

Tracy
8 years ago

LBT:

You are such a jerk.

::giggle-cries::

As is, I have to satisfy myself with being a follower of the great Ed Wood.

And all shall praise his holy name while dancing around the Golden Turkey.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

katz: It’s all good. I recognize the distinction between “insulting all atheists”; “getting digs in at a sub-group of atheists”; and “trying to correct a particular atheist who is clogging up the forum with some stuff that’s not appropriate to the venue”.

There are times and places where I will be, to use Tracy’s term, an “anti-theist”. I am not disturbed by that description at all; it’s arguably a good description of one of the precepts I’d use if given magical world-rebuilding powers (so yes, my first action upon being given godly powers would be the banishment of religion).

What I recognize, however, is that THIS is not a place for me to make that argument. This is a place for me to complain about misogynistic elements of society (regardless of their religious status), and to both offer and receive succor and solace from others dealing with the same shit (again, without concern for the religious beliefs of my fellow-travelers).

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: Tracy

It’s true! Also, it gives me a great responses for if well-meaning assholes tell me that the hardships I have experienced are because “God has a plan for me.” I can just fix them with a thousand-yard stare and whisper, “Ed Wood has a plan for me.”

Then I can wrap my lower face in a cloak and Lugosi away.

freemage
freemage
8 years ago

Tracy: Good to hear. Confession time, though–I’m human and do slip up, like everyone else. My main advantage is that I’m usually pretty good about letting myself get called on it.

chibigodzilla
8 years ago

The whole problem being that, if you start out by saying that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional, there’s pretty much no non-asshole way to go from there.

The whole problem being that, if you start out by saying that everyone who disagrees with you is an immoral monster who is going to Hell, there’s pretty much no non-asshole way to go from there.

Well this is starting to get recursive:

The whole problem being that, if you start out by saying that everyone who disagrees with you starts out by saying that everyone who disagrees with them starts out by saying that everyone who disagrees with them [etc], there’s pretty much no non-asshole way to go from there.

I also tend to noptopus my way right the fuck out of a thread whenever the atheism/theism subject comes up, so I may have missed some of the legacy discussions. However, I have seen folks on manboobz say that theists are delusional/stupid(i think “crazy” has been used as well), on the other hand, I haven’t seen anyone on manboobz claim that non-believers(atheist or otherwise) are immoral/going to hell.

FWIW, I do feel that if someone did come in here with the “believe in (my) god or you’re going to hell” approach, the theist regulars would react just as viscerally as they do to the “theists are delusional” meme.

titianblue
titianblue
8 years ago

FWIW, I do feel that if someone did come in here with the “believe in (my) god or you’re going to hell” approach, the theist regulars would react just as viscerally as they do to the “theists are delusional” meme.

Too bloody true.

pecunium
8 years ago

FWIW, I do feel that if someone did come in here with the “believe in (my) god or you’re going to hell” approach, the theist regulars would react just as viscerally as they do to the “theists are delusional” meme.

At least.

It’s been awhile since we had someone being an asshat with their religion: NWO is the only one who comes to mind who wasn’t a driveby.

Tracy
8 years ago

LBT:

I can just fix them with a thousand-yard stare and whisper, “Ed Wood has a plan for me.”

I am going to do that the next time the LDS or JW’s come to my door and don’t take my polite ‘no, thank you’ for an answer. Except I will then throw some glitter, flutter my hands as if they are wings, and Disney away.

freemage:

Confession time, though–I’m human and do slip up, like everyone else.

Oh, me too. I can get very smug and condescending. Busband is in charge of sounding the ‘Tracy’s tone’ alarm.

I have a friend who is christian (not sure which denomination) who also has a mouth even fouler than my own. We had a great time at her birthday party having fake and pretty dirty religious debates in front of her very conservative religious family – her idea, and she was delighted (and really, really drunk). We often rag on each other for being a godbot/hellbound heathen in good fun. But a mutual friend of ours once got into a serious debate with her out of nowhere, challenging her belief system and being pissy about it. Really pissed her off. In her words, ‘challenge my beliefs and ideas, but don’t attack them, or me because I have them.’

I dunno… sometimes people just want to be right more than they want to understand someone else. I try not to do the former. I don’t always succeed.

titianblue
titianblue
8 years ago

sometimes people just want to be right more than they want to understand someone else.

Sums up most of our trolls, right there.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“It would be epic; if we had grounds for personal disagreement, as opposed to philosophical differences about the nature of the ineffable.”

Mangos 😛

Hmm, it’d also require neither, or at least not both, of us to subscribe to “in matters of taste…”

It would indeed be epic, but I cannot think of a topic on which it could occur. Maybe whether you’re allowed to get yourself arrested for your response to my father, but even that would be the arrested part, not the rest.

*ponders for a moment* refrain from agreeing with my psych. That wouldn’t get epic, that would just fucking hurt.

Other than that, I got nothing. Which is good, because we could manage Cataline Orations level lengthy and convoluted (might be fun, devils advocate sometime?)

Anyways!

“DON’T YOU DARE MENTION THE OCTOPUS AGAIN. (Though I have actually used ‘nopetopus’ as a verb in my house, much to the amusement of my roommate.) Also, when you see Sneak, ask zer for zer jellyfish imitation.”

OCTOPUS!!!

Speaking of seeing Sneak, pecunium, you see the question about us invading your place for the keyboard repair? LBT suggestion October 1~2 which works for me I think. Should probably work out some details on this, since I wouldn’t mind just crashing there. You two want me to cc you both on email about that?

“The Mallet of Loving Correction”

Not going to say anything. Not going to say anything. So many entirely inappropriate comment. Not saying anything…

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Pecunium you can ignore most of that novella I just deposited in your inbox, this covers it — “sometimes people just want to be right more than they want to understand someone else.”

For those following along without being privy to our email, I am Not Religious in any traditional sense. We discuss such matters without, well, the sort of epicness that would result from us actually fighting, how? That, right there.

And, from the non-religious corner, I’m equally sure that anyone pulling that “atheists are monsters” shit would be told where to shove it as I am that “believe in my religion or go to hell” would get told the same.

pecunium
8 years ago

“The Mallet of Loving Correction” is the name Scalzi uses for the Banhammer. At Chicon VII he was given a real one (gavel the size of a jackhammer).

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Well now that’s just no fun at all!

Ok it probably is. But not in the sense I was…am…not saying.

katz
8 years ago

And, from the non-religious corner, I’m equally sure that anyone pulling that “atheists are monsters” shit would be told where to shove it as I am that “believe in my religion or go to hell” would get told the same.

Well, naturally. I think it doesn’t come up much because the overlap between those sorts of people and people with repugnant gender views is so large and of course we end up focusing on the gender aspect.